Democracy, Greatness and Exceptionalism

Americans claim, as led by one president after another, that they have the 'greatest' democracy on earth. What exactly does that mean? Even within the standard dictionary definition of the word, there are conflicting ideas:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
4. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

People on the left end of the political spectrum would tend to define democracy as a political system that recognizes the rights of minorities (4). People on the right, I believe, place democracy as a method of obtaining majority rule (3). The two can be, and often are, at odds with each other as history has clearly shown. All agree that democracy is 'government by the people'. The exercise of such varies widely according to the structures in place to achieve that aim. Thus, the results of governance 'by the people' can be very disproportionate at any given time or in any given country that considers itself a democracy.

How does one measure the greatness then of one country's democratic system over another's? I would posit that such a yardstick doesn't exist.

On the left, we would tend to quantify the effectiveness of democracy based on human rights and justice issues. To then measure those results in a country such as the United States, one could only claim that in order for that democracy to be considered the 'greatest', it would have the highest standards of living for all people, especially minorities , in terms of proper health care, education, due process under the law, humane treatment of prisoners, low infant mortality rates, high literacy rates and all things that a body like the UN Human Development Index is able to detail statistically. Yet, the United States is not consistently at the top of that list, as one would expect from a country that considers its democracy to be great.

Even when you look at the basic elements of what makes a democracy function ie. governmental institutions and branches, effective representation and 'one person, one vote', there is no doubt that the United States continues to fail on many levels. After hundreds of years, there is no guarantee that every citizen actually eligible to vote can do so without impediment. The congressional duties of oversight of the executive branch have become moot due to extreme partisanship and elected representatives are certainly more willing to vote on behalf of those who fund their political campaigns and whichever lobbying group is able to most forcefully make their case. The result is a lack of representation for ordinary people. Thus, the main tenet of democracy, 'government by the people', breaks down. What is left is a shadow of a political system that no longer resembles anything near democracy.

To call such an expression of democracy 'the greatest' is then highly questionable.

Every country with a democratic system in place faces the quandary of how to actually make such a concept workable. But, how can one effectively measure one against the other? And which country offers the best example at any given time of what democracy is? It seems it can only be seen in terms of working towards the ideal and no country has been able to reach that ultimate goal yet - where 'government by the people' is truly representative and free of corrupt influences.

Many in America view their country as exceptional. This is yet another example of asserting a position that is practically immeasurable. What does it mean to be exceptional? I would argue that such an adjective can only be applied based on the merits of living in any particular country and how it relates interdependently to the rest of the world. This observation then on the part of so many Americans must be based on the reality of daily life and the ability of the government to act in concert with other countries based on ideals such as the Golden Rule and the Hippocratic oath of 'do no harm'. Is America exceptional under those terms? No. There are many countries whose internal and external policies are more exceptional than those of the United States.

I'd conclude then by stating that ideas of greatness and exceptionalism are far less about what is actually true than they are the expressions of a country that wants to exude those qualities, but has yet to discover the key to making them so.

When one stands in society from a place of proclaiming exaltation above all overs, whether based on fabricated moral grounds or simply a belief that it is unquestionably so, one stands to fall from that platform in a very hard way. There is a vast difference between the ego that brings this type of unquestioned pride to bear and the humility that requires one to truly reflect on reality in order to move towards an authentic type of greatness or exceptionalism that is based not on delusions but on an admission that those qualities must come from a place of rigorous examination of all aspects of one's character.

Greatness lies, not in being strong, but in the right using of strength; and strength is not used rightly when it serves only to carry a man above his fellows for his own solitary glory. He is the greatest whose strength carries up the most hearts by the attraction of his own.
Henry Ward Beecher

Greatness is not found in simply stating it. It is found in the expression of it.